Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a polling operation, it should be called with the same job_id, and it returns the result once status=completed. It also notes 'no quota cost,' which is a meaningful operational detail beyond the annotations. A small gap: it doesn't describe what happens if the job is still pending or fails, but the polling pattern is clear enough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the exact usage condition, and the read-only/quota note. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the conditional usage. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple polling tool with 2 fully-documented parameters and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the trigger condition, the polling pattern, and the read-only nature. It doesn't describe the output format, but there is no output schema and the description says 'retrieve the result,' which is sufficient for an agent to understand the return value. A 4 is fair because it could mention what to do if status remains pending, but that's a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (job_id and _apiKey). The description adds context that job_id comes from a previous call and should be the same one, which is helpful, but it doesn't add new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool polls a previously-submitted gap analysis job by ID, with a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('previously-submitted gap analysis job'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing crawlgraph_gap_analysis and crawlgraph_gap_outreach_targets, which are the tools that create the jobs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: when crawlgraph_gap_analysis or crawlgraph_gap_outreach_targets returned status=pending with a job_id, and to call it with the same job_id to retrieve the result once status=completed. This is clear, actionable guidance that differentiates it from alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.